Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010101222018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3127/2018 JIBEN DEBNATH S/O- LATE RADHE SHYAM DEBNATH, R/O- DELEHAT DIGPUKHURI, P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GHY- 6 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001 4:THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER OF THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI DELHI- 110001 5:THE OFFICE OF THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 REP. BY ITS COORDINATOR 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781005 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787032 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE NORTH LAKHIMPUR POLICE STATION DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 78700 Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN, MR H I CHOUDHURY,MS. P A TALUKDAR,MR N Y KONYAK Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 21.05.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing counsel for the F.T. matters; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned counsel, ECI; Ms. K.M. Phukan, learned CGC; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Page No.# 3/6 petitioner has assailed impugned opinion dated 09.04.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner's Tribunal 1st, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Lakhimpur FT-1 Case No. 301/2010 (Dist. No. 555/2007), by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into the State after 25.03.1971. 3. It is clarified that although in the impugned opinion dated the 09.04.2018, the case number has been typed as Lakhimpur FT-1 Case No. 307/2010 by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 1st, Lakhimpur by communication dated 03.02.2025, clarified that the said opinion was passed in the proceedings of LFT- I Case No. 301/2010 (Dist. No. 555/2007). The typographical error which is crept in the case number given in the impugned opinion resulted in a wrong record of FT-1 Case No. 307/2010 being called for and thereafter pursuant to the order dated 06.01.2025 passed in this writ petition, the clarification was issued by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 1st, Lakhimpur. Accordingly, notwithstanding the impugned opinion is referred as Lakhimpur FT-1 Case No. 307/2010 dated 09.04.2018, in view of the typographical error, the same shall hereinafter be referred to as Lakhimpur LFT-I Case No. 301/2010. 4. In view of the order which is proposed to be passed, it is an evidence on record not been adverted to. 5. On perusal of the Tribunal records, certain documents have been seen which is not a part of the evidence rendered by the petitioner and therefore, do not form part of the opinion. Under such circumstances, the Standing counsel for the FT matters has made an objection to the effect that in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Science v. Bikartan Das, reported in 2023 SCC Online 996. It is submitted that as this Page No.# 4/6 Court is exercising statutory jurisdiction, details which are not placed before the Tribunal or not to be looked into by the Court. 6. On a perusal of the materials available on records, the Court is of the view that although the petitioner had submitted the relevant documents before the learned Tribunal, but perhaps the petitioner was not correctly given legal advice as to how the case of the petitioner is to be presented before the learned Tribunal. It is noticed that along with the written statement, the petitioner has submitted a copy of the opinion dated 23.08.2010 passed by the Learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Lakhimpur in LFT Case No. 47/2010 (Dist. No. 595/07) which is the proceedings against Sri Sankar Debnath. In the written statement while annexing the said document, it has been projected that the said person is the brother of the petitioner. The copy of the said opinion has not been exhibited by the petitioner along with the evidence. 7. However, this Court takes note of the fact that the notice of the proceedings of LFT-I Case No. 301/2010 (Dist. No. 555/07) was served on the petitioner and the same was received by Sri Sankar Debnath who mentioned that he was the brother of the petitioner and son of Late Radheshyam Debnath. 8. Therefore, the Court prima facie finds a connection between the petitioner as well as the proceedee of LFT Case No. 47/2010 (Dist. No. 595/07). However, it is clarified that the Court is not rendering any opinion as to whether there exists a relationship between the said proceedee and the petitioner herein. 9. Under such circumstances, the Court is the considered opinion that as the petitioner projects that his brother was declared to be not a foreigner, petitioner granted one opportunity to prove any other document against the petitioner intends to rely upon. Accordingly, without examining the evidence rendered by Page No.# 5/6 the petitioner on merit, prima facie satisfaction that the petitioner deserves an opportunity to prove his connection with the proceedee of LFT Case No. 47/2010 (Dist. No. 595/2007). The Court is inclined to set aside the impugned opinion dated 09.04.2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigner's Tribunal 1st, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Lakhimpur FT-1 Case No. 301/2010 (Dist. No. 555/2007). 10. The matter is remanded back to the said learned Tribunal with following direction(s) to the petitioner :- (i) Petitioner will appear before the said learned Tribunal on or before 23.06.2025 and he will produce a copy of this order as well as his additional written statement and a prayer before the said learned Tribunal to allow him to file additional pleadings and thereafter on subject to the order i.e. passed by the said learned Tribunal, do the needful in support of this case; (ii) In the event, the petitioner has not appeared before the said learned Tribunal within the time allowed, it would be open to the said learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and pass appropriate orders in the proceedings; and (iii) It is clarified that as the order is passed in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not required to be put to notice of the commencement of proceedings before the learned Tribunal. 11. On appearance of the petitioner before the said learned Tribunal, it would be open to the learned Tribunal to pass such order in accordance with law. 12. This order is passed under circumstances unique to this case and therefore, this order shall not be a precedent in any other case. Page No.# 6/6 13. The Registry shall send back the Tribunal records expeditiously along with the copy of this order made a part of record. 14. The writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant